Video diffusion models increasingly serve as priors for 4D generation, but the generated videos often lack geometric consistency. Recent approaches address this through post-training by designing geometric rewards, yet this can degrade texture and fine detail, requiring auxiliary appearance rewards and careful reward balancing. To address this challenge, we propose GeoFix, a unified framework that improves geometric consistency and visual quality with a single geometric reward, applicable to both training and inference-time reward alignment. Our reward measures cross-view depth consistency in static scene regions, targeting structural inconsistencies without directly constraining appearance or penalizing valid object motion. Crucially, depth agreement increases with camera field-of-view overlap even in real videos and 4D datasets, allowing a smaller camera movement to be mistaken for better geometry. We account for this effect by calibrating the reward against the overlap-dependent trend. GeoFix achieves a 39% improvement in WorldScore 3D consistency and a 4% increase in VBench Quality Score.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Generated 4DGS and rendered videos from GeoFix . Our geometric consistency reward yields more coherent 4D representations through both training and inference-time alignment.
Figure 2: Overview of GeoFix. (a) FOCAL is computed directly from video latents using a stitched 4D reconstructor. (b) We measure cross-view depth reprojection error in static regions and (c) calibrate it to remove overlap bias.
Figure 3: Camera Correlation Analysis. Existing direct and indirect geometric rewards vary with camera movement, creating a bias toward smaller viewpoint changes. Our FOV-calibrated reward remains invariant, providing a more reliable measure of geometric consistency.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of 4DGS-rendered Text-to-Video generation.
RFOCAL
WorldScore
Scene Consistency
Dynamics
Visual Quality
Text Alignment
Method
Avg
3D Cons.
Photo. Cons.
Motion Acc.
Motion Mag.
Motion Smooth.
Style Cons.
Sub. Qual.
Content Align.
Base
29.99
44.39
33.55
50.30
45.17
18.08
84.70
6.80
89.36
SFT
31.02
50.11
38.47
52.76
48.93
19.90
89.00
9.80
87.17
VIST3A
31.06
58.32
47.00
52.84
41.94
25.62
96.63
15.16
95.47
World-R1
30.49
42.26
31.64
51.35
45.90
19.72
88.07
9.57
91.03
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of training-time reward alignment methods.
VBench
Method
Subject Consistency
Background Consistency
Aesthetic Quality
Imaging Quality
Motion Smoothness
Base
0.9542
0.9528
0.5966
0.6733
0.9841
VGGRPO
0.9644 (+1.07%)
0.9583 (+0.58%)
0.5991 (+0.42%)
0.6861 (+1.90%)
0.9895 (+0.55%)
Base
0.8741
0.9389
0.4679
0.5523
0.9589
Ours
0.9317 (+6.59%)
0.9601 (+2.25%)
0.5272 (+12.67%)
0.5979 (+8.25%)
0.9802 (+2.22%)
Table 2: Quantitative comparison of training-time reward alignment against VGGRPO. Parentheses show relative improvements over the base model.
Camera Accuracy
WorldScore
Scene Consistency
Dynamics
Visual Quality
Text Alignment
Method
Rot. Err. ↓
Trans. Err. ↓
ATE Norm. ↓
3D Cons.
Photo. Cons.
Motion Acc.
Motion Mag.
Motion Smooth.
Style Cons.
Sub. Qual.
Content Align.
None
2.040
34.97
0.2563
75.43
76.06
44.81
31.93
23.65
95.47
20.87
94.10
Best-of- N
1.751
34.57
0.2507
78.00
78.33
44.59
31.15
24.61
96.08
21.86
94.66
None
2.040
34.97
0.2563
75.43
76.06
44.81
31.93
23.65
95.47
20.87
94.10
DPS
1.977
34.63
0.2562
76.49
76.59
44.42
31.83
23.84
95.56
21.15
94.55
Table 3: Quantitative comparison of inference-time reward alignment.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on Image-to-4D generation. We overlay 3D representations from multiple timesteps in a single view to visualize dynamic motion over time.
Figure 6: Quantitative comparison on 4D Scene Generation. Higher is better; axes use different scales.
Figure 7: Analysis of reward sensitivity to geometric corruption.
Figure 8: VBench reward comparison.
γ
VBench Avg.
Dynamic
0
0.6802
0.395
0.7 (Ours)
0.6861
0.425
1
0.6823
0.425
Table 4: Effect of FOV calibration.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Trajectory
Trajectory
Pan Left
Pan Left-Up
Pan Right
Pan Left-Down
Pan Up
Pan Right-Up
Pan Down
Pan Right-Down
Zoom In
Zoom Out
Appendix
Table 5: Ten target camera trajectories used for camera-controlled image-to-4DGS evaluation on 355 VBench-I2V images.
Figure 9: Official VideoPhy-2 physical-commonsense (PC) query template used with videophy_2_auto .
Method
Novel Time
Novel View
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS ↓
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS ↓
4DGT
17.72
0.5510
0.5032
16.35
0.5015
0.5167
MoVieS
19.12
0.5819
0.3785
16.83
0.4904
0.4271
NeoVerse
20.30
0.5793
0.2917
17.23
0.5117
0.3716
Ours
21.98
0.6451
0.2605
17.65
0.5187
0.3748
Appendix
Table 6: Quantitative comparison on novel-time and novel-view reconstruction.
Figure 10: Additional qualitative results on Text-to-4DGS generation. We overlay 3D representations from multiple timesteps in a single view to visualize dynamic motion over time.
Figure 11: Additional qualitative comparison on Text-to-Video generation.
Figure 12: Overlap bias in cross-view depth errors on reference videos. Reference videos with a large FOV change (low overlap Ω ) exhibit larger depth reprojection errors than those with a small FOV change (high Ω ), even when their reconstruction quality is comparable. Thus, the raw depth-agreement score is influenced not only by geometric quality but also by camera motion.
Figure 13: FOV overlap computation. Top: the first camera C1 and the last camera CF are expressed in the first camera’s frame, and a reference sphere of radius r is centered at C1 . Sphere samples inside the FOV of C1 only, of CF only, and of both cameras are shown in blue, orange, and purple, respectively. Bottom: the same samples on the azimuth–elevation grid for (a) small, (b) moderate, and (c) large camera motion between the first and last frames, with the resulting overlap Ω . The top row corresponds to (b). Insets show the camera poses from above.
Figure 14: Analysis of VBench rewards. (a) Additional qualitative results for the video-quality reward ablation in Section 4.5 , comparing training with VBench rewards against FOCAL. (b) Representative artifacts from optimizing each of the five VBench rewards individually.
Generating geometrically consistent videos remains an open challenge: text-to-video diffusion models trained on web-scale data treat geometry only implicitly, leading to object deformation, texture drift, and non-rigid backgrounds under camera motion. Existing solutions either improve consistency as a byproduct, apply only to static scenes or realign the latent space of the model completely. We introduce a geometry-consistency reward that directly measures whether motion in a generated video is compatible with a coherent scene. Our key insight is that in physically consistent videos, background motion should be explainable by rigid camera-induced flow, while independently moving objects should preserve appearance identity along motion trajectories. We operationalize this using optical flow, depth--pose predictions, and feature-based correspondence to separate rigid and dynamic regions and evaluate their respective consistency. Integrating this reward with reinforcement fine-tuning transforms geometric consistency from an emergent property into an explicit optimization objective for video generators. The approach is model agnostic and applies to diverse dynamic scenes containing both camera and object motion. Experiments show substantial reductions in temporal geometric artifacts over strong baselines while preserving perceptual quality. Code and model weights are published.
Video diffusion models lack explicit geometric supervision during training, leading to inconsistency artifacts such as object deformation, spatial drift, and depth violations in generated videos. To address this limitation, we propose a geometry-based reward model that leverages pretrained geometric foundation models to evaluate multi-view consistency through cross-frame reprojection error. Unlike previous geometric metrics that measure inconsistency in pixel space, where pixel intensity may introduce additional noise, our approach conducts error computation in a pointwise fashion, yielding a more physically grounded and robust error metric. Furthermore, we introduce a geometry-aware sampling strategy that filters out low-texture and non-semantic regions, focusing evaluation on geometrically meaningful areas with reliable correspondences to improve robustness. We apply this reward model to align video diffusion models through two complementary pathways: post-training of a bidirectional model via SFT or Reinforcement Learning and inference-time optimization of a Causal Video Model (e.g., Streaming video generator) via test-time scaling with our reward as a path verifier. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of our design, demonstrating that our geometry-based reward provides superior robustness compared to other variants. By enabling efficient inference-time scaling, our method offers a practical solution for enhancing open-source video models without requiring extensive computational resources for retraining.
Tengjiao Yin, Jinglei Shi, Heng Guo +1
VCIP & TMCC & DISSec, College of Computer Science, Nankai University · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · LIX, École Polytechnique, IP Paris
Faithful visual world simulation requires generated videos to maintain 4D world consistency, encompassing both static and dynamic consistency. Static consistency requires coherent 3D structure in static environments across viewpoints, while dynamic consistency requires plausible subject motion and consistent appearance over time. Geometry-aware post-training offers a promising way to improve world consistency. However, existing methods often rely on a static-scene assumption. Even those that accommodate dynamic scenes struggle to provide reliable static-consistency feedback, while dynamic consistency is often overlooked or inadequately assessed. To address these limitations, we introduce WorldAlign, a decoupled 4D reward framework that semantically separates static regions and dynamic subjects and provides feedback by aligning each with a world prior suited to its assumptions. For static regions, WorldAlign aligns static geometry with a geometric world prior through semantically guided masked reprojection, enabling more reliable static-consistency evaluation; an auxiliary camera-motion reward discourages nearly static solutions. For dynamic subjects, WorldAlign uses a strong vision-language model (VLM) as a dynamic world prior and constructs a VLM-as-a-judge reward based on sample-specific checklists that assess dynamicity, physical plausibility, shape, and texture consistency. This decoupled design enables more effective online post-training without requiring human preference annotations. Across two pretrained image-to-video generators, Wan2.1 and Wan2.2, WorldAlign jointly improves static and dynamic consistency over existing methods without suppressing overall or subject motion. These results support decoupled world-prior alignment for more faithful visual world simulation. Project page: https://worldalign.github.io/.
Jing He, Kaixin Ding, Xingye Tian +5
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · KlingAI · The University of Hong Kong +1